The Axis of Woman-Hating

From Cyanide and Happiness.

Radical feminism and antinatalism are two topics I’ve written a great deal about. While there are some obvious connections between them, I haven’t written a great deal about them except for PIV. Yet there is more there to talk about, I think.

I’ve discussed before why I think natalism ultimately equates to woman-hating, both in its lower-class extreme version (the Quiverfull cults) and in its higher-class pseudo-intellectual version (the Bryan Caplan types). While there is no inconsistency between antinatalism and woman-hating (and yes, I’ve talked to a few woman-hating antinatalists), a consistent natalist must be woman-hating explicitly or implicitly.

In a sense, though, this is only a result of the fact that natalism inherently supports the status quo, because our institutions depend on population growth for their health and survival. Think about the global arguments for natalism: procreation drives the economy, procreation drives innovation, procreation helps fund other people’s retirements. Obviously an economy is an economy of some country, innovation supports some country’s economy, retirements are paid by some country. Ultimately procreation is nothing more or less than an extension of nationalism.

I didn’t mention the individualist argument that people are happy, therefore we should make more of them, although I’ve already addressed the general form of this argument. I will merely note that the argument loses a lot of its credibility by ignoring the objectively measured loss of happiness by the parents.

Natalism is also part and parcel of other status quo ideologies. White racists, for example, preach procreation by white couples to prevent the world from getting taken over by the “inferior races” (or as they like to say now, other races are not inferior, white people are just better). Democratic votes are decided on sheer numbers, which can only be raised by procreation or immigration. And of course the State can only get more money by raising taxes or expanding its tax base.

So you get what I call the Axis of Woman-Hating: natalism, anti-feminism and traditional genderism. All these issues are directly related to each other. Traditional genderism states that it is part of the woman’s role to give birth and raise children for her man/society. Anti-feminism argues that women rebelling against their gender role as mothers causes the degeneration of society. Natalism assumes that the role of women is to breed, and that women’s values are irrelevant.

Within the confines of decency and morality Women are rightly sexual objects to Men. Nature designed us that way and the survival of the species demands it.
(bold mine)

I am using this quote not as a typical example of reasoning, but as an illustration, int that the three elements in bold here illustrate the connection I’m talking about: anti-feminism (women are sex objects) -> genderism (nature designed us that way) -> natalism (survival of the species).

The connection presents itself to us in the larger historical concept as well. According to The Creation of Patriarchy, by Gerda Lerner, the source of woman-hatred is actually the need for equal sex ratios in horticultural societies, coupled with the higher death rate of women because of the hardship of childbirth. This led to wars for women and their reproductive capacities, to women being treated as a resource, and then a progressively lower and lower status for women as they become enslaved to patriarchs and then State interests. Lerner proposes that slavery itself was made possible by the prior experience that men had of grouping women as an inferior class.

So you’ve got here a direct connection: procreation is the historical cause of traditional genderism. Anti-feminism, as a reaction to feminism and its attacks against traditional genderism, obviously started much more recently, but the periodic anti-feminist backlash has defined feminism almost as much as feminist causes.

I can well imagine someone arguing, so what? What does it matter if they are connected in origin? Why should we care about what happened four thousand years ago? Because the male desire to own and control female sexuality was at the root of male domination and continues to be at the root of male domination today. Men as a class dictated and dictate to women as a class how they should behave as sexual beings. The main difference is the main form of power behind that domination: no longer condign power (outright force) but rather compensatory power (money, insofar as women make far less than men) and conditioned power (fear of “being a bitch” or “being a whore/slut”, pornography and prostitution, propaganda about women’s bodies and how to present as a woman).

[I]t is not women who are reified and commodified, it is women’s sexuality and reproductive capacity which is so treated. The distinction is important. women never became “things,” nor were they so perceived. Women, no matter how exploited and abused, retained their power to act and to choose to the same, often very limited extent, as men of their group. But women always and to this day lived in a relatively greater state of un-freedom than did men. Since their sexuality, an aspect of their body, was controlled by others, women weer not only actually disadvantaged but psychologically restrained in a very special way.
The Creation of Patriarchy, Gerda Lerner, p213-214

This control of female sexuality drives what we call gender roles. Women are indoctrinated to be submissive and sexually desirable to men, to not spread their sexuality around and ideally remain virgins for their husbands, to think and feel in a way favorable to mothering and unfavorable to independent existence, and to internalize their inherent inferiority no matter what they do. Man puts woman on a pedestal so he can more easily throw her down when she breaks the gender rules.

A panoply of gynocidal practices such as the legal inferiority of women (including the criminalization of contraception and abortion), forced childbirth, prostitution and pornography, rape as strategy in warfare, suttee, foot-binding, neck rings, the burning of witches, honor killings, female genital mutilation, anorexia, and cosmetic mandates, amongst others, have served either as guarantee of women assuming their role or punishment for refusal to take the role.

By linking radfem and antinatalism through procreation as the ultimate female role, I am not claiming that ending procreation would end the Patriarchy or that ending the Patriarchy would end procreation. But I am arguing that both have common historical roots, a common goal and a common enemy. I also don’t expect radfems reading this to become antinatalists or antinatalists reading this to become radfems. There is a need to keep the two ideologies separate, as their arguments and lines of reasoning are completely different, but they ultimately support each other and I see no reason why antinatalists who are not woman-hating and radfems who are not admirers of motherhood should not cooperate ideologically. I consider myself to be both (a radfem ally, of course, not an actual radfem) and I see no discord between the two.

14 thoughts on “The Axis of Woman-Hating

  1. pandaduh January 28, 2014 at 17:33

    I think this is an important topic that is getting more and more attention. This was recently posted on Thought Catalog and she got death threats for saying something similar to what you say here: I’m glad you’re making your voice heard!

    • Francois Tremblay January 28, 2014 at 18:56

      Of course she got death threats. She’s a woman. I can say whatever I want with few or no consequences. That’s just blogging for you. And, you know, woman-hating.

  2. pandaduh January 28, 2014 at 17:34

    Reblogged this on AmandaPandaDUH.

  3. Rafael January 30, 2014 at 03:14

    ”Making the decision to have a child-it’s momentous. It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body.”

    It’s usually women who say stuff like this and want to get pregnant so bad since they were children and who think pregnant women are glowing with beauty and it’s a miracle,a divine experience, etc.

  4. alexandermcnabb January 30, 2014 at 10:45

    I find it interesting how you’ve basically denied female agency and defined their Acceptable Options for them. If a woman wants to have children, then she’s been brainwashed by the vile oppressive patriarchy. If a woman frowns on having children, then she’s just a perfectly rational feminist. This is such a hilariously unfalsifiable form of rhetoric I’m surprised anyone would take it seriously.

    • Francois Tremblay January 30, 2014 at 20:57

      Hi moron. I already deny human agency, period, so I don’t know why you think this is surprising. But at least you’re actually reading my entry instead of not reading it and posting an uninformed critique of it, so that’s nice.

      To be honest though, I’d rather you didn’t read my blog at all. You obviously don’t have the intelligence or the conceptual framework necessary to follow along.

      • Alleb February 16, 2014 at 11:31

        Hi, this is an interesting blog entry but I just find it to be so extreme. I am a woman who considers herself to fight for equal rights but having children and raising them myself doesn’t take away any of those rights or the weight of my words.
        Society should work together as a team and if it means I have to raise my children, along with my husband, so that they become educated individuals then so be it, unless you want to grow old and live in a society with only old people repeating the same decade over and over. Youth not only brings innovation, it brings prosperity. I respect your decision, or any woman’s decision to not have children but don’t believe that a woman that wants to have a child is being brainwashed.
        p.s. Don’t think that was the appropriate way to respond to an opposing commentary if you are expecting to get good feedback from society by establishing an opposing ideal, but hey thats just what my mother taught me.

        • tnt666 February 16, 2014 at 18:33

          During the patriarchal stronghold years, patriarchy achieved much destructive “innovation and prosperity” through breeding us cattle. Patriarchal power achieved nearly 100% breeding function onto females by enshrining monogamous power structures between males and females, binding females in slavery to breeding. Since feminism and women’s lib has been present in this patriarchal society, we’ve been fighting back females designed role as providers of cheap labour for great male endeavours. Western countries now have 85% of males who eventually breed, and 88% of females who eventually breed.
          This discussion in no way says much about women’s individual decisions… since we are all raised in societies where breeding is the norm. Just like killing Jews was the norm for a great many Germans during WW2. Neither group has or had true agency. It requires some pretty weird and antisocial parents to buck social trends and teach their kids rebellion to social structures instead of “fitting in”.
          In discussions about breeding and our non-agency… I find it’s important that people admit that they are not breeding because they want to but because society tells them to. The same way babies growing up in Catholic homes become Catholic and babies growing up in Muslim homes become Muslim and babies growing up in Jewish homes become Jews. Apples rarely fall far from the tree.
          So try looking at this from the social perspective instead of the individual one. Our societal objectives should be to stop subsidising breeding, stop creating legal advantages for married people over single people. Stop the constant messages in school and home about the “beauty of pregnancy and motherhood”. Because to be truthful, most children of the planet are not happy.
          Looking at it from the societal perspective, hoping to create a human population more in synch with nature, we need to reduce the human population to about 0.2 billion. We can achieve this NOT with 1-child policies, but with stopping with the ridiculous “family ideal”. We achieve this by reducing the number of breeding individuals from 85-88% of the population to under 10% of the population. Encouraging people to pursue their life freedom rather than the breeding objective or the “super woman” syndrome of infants of working moms raised by second class citizens from immigrant communities.
          Most other non-herbivorous mammals follow this social structure, and the more we insist on humans being able to “elevate” (religious-spiritual mumbo jumbo) ourselves above nature and embrace a more balanced relationship with nature, we’ll have a much happier more peaceful society. The more humans remove ourselves from nature, the more miserable we get as society, and we come to rely on pacifying and pain killing pharmaceuticals for our very survival.

  5. tnt666 February 1, 2014 at 16:29

    100% agree :)

  6. JJ February 6, 2014 at 01:40

    I consider myself a rad-fem and an antinatalist and I’ve had these same thoughts swimming in my head. Thank you for writing about this important topic in a such a fantastic way.

    • Francois Tremblay February 6, 2014 at 01:49

      Thanks, I’m glad you liked it. I don’t know how long you’ve been reading, but I have more entries on both topics, so check out the categories section. :)

  7. […] but not with antinatalism, as both are fundamentally connected. I’ve pointed out before the connection between anti-feminism and natalism; now I would go farther and even say that we cannot have feminism without antinatalism, and we […]

  8. […] In a previous entry, I discussed the connections in what I called the Axis of Woman-Hating: natalism (women as a means to the end of procreation), anti-feminism (women are sex objects) and genderism (nature made women inferior). […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: