Interview with Nina Paley

This article was supposed to appear in the newest issue of Antinatalism Magazine, but unfortunately the magazine is no longer being published due to issues with a debate which was also supposed to appear. So I’ve decided to put the interview here.
Nina Paley is an antinatalist and radical feminist movie director and animator from Illinois. You can check out her blog here.

***

You are most well-known as an animated filmmaker, and your first feature film Sita Sings the Blues received a huge response. That must have been an amazing experience. You are also a prominent figure in the movement against intellectual property and copyright. What convinced you to take up that cause? What arguments do you find most convincing?

What surprises me is that anybody finds arguments for copyright convincing. I don’t even think that they find the arguments convincing, I think that we’ve all been indoctrinated into this copyright regime that makes no sense at all. Culture is just not property and we’ve all been sort of mesmerized to think that it is: that’s the bizarre thing to me. Coming to see it differently was like waking up from a weird dream.

I’ve talked a lot about this regarding Sita Sings the Blues. Going through the process of making it legal to share that film was just absurd, given that all the music I was using should be in the public domain. What people often get wrong about me and copyright is they think that I didn’t know that the music was under copyright: I did. When I started working on Sita Sings the Blues, I went to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which put me in touch with an intellectual property law clinic and the students there found the provenance of all the music that I used. When it came time to actually release the film, because the distribution industry had changed, it fell on me to clear all this stuff, so I got a front row seat to how all that worked, and I was appalled. I spoke on that in detail, blogged on it, and it’s a horrific thing.

You made many antinatalism-based shorts, including The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer (2002) and Thank You for Not Breeding (2002), which I think a lot of readers have seen on Youtube (and if they haven’t, they should!). How did you become an antinatalist and what inspired you to make these shorts?

Thank You For Not Breeding is actually the collection of those shorts, including The Wit and Wisdom of Cancer, The Stork, and some others. I of course was antinatalist before I knew there was a word “antinatalist.”

I had just always been this way ever since I was a little child, growing up in the 70s (I was born in 1968). There was popular awareness of environmental degradation in the 70s. There was also popular awareness of human overpopulation back then. And it was striking to me how that popular awareness just ended. In the 70s people could talk about overpopulation issues, but then suddenly you couldn’t any more and everybody was just pretending it didn’t exist. It certainly stayed with me, and it just seemed impossible for me not to comprehend that all of these environmental problems were a direct result of human activity.

Growing up in the 70s, there was also awareness of cigarette smoking as bad for you. My grandparents smoked cigarettes and they were addicted to it, at least my grandfather was, and when I was growing up they said “don’t smoke cigarettes, they’re addictive, I only smoke these because we didn’t know.”

So when I hit my twenties, of course I was really surprised that the idiots my age were smoking. Clearly you’re not doing it because you don’t know. But also they were breeding! We know what this does, we know this is a problem, so what are you doing?

And I still have no answers to this, but I really thought that knowing what’s what would keep people from doing stupid things, and clearly that’s not the case. I was a very angry young woman and I just could not believe that, once my generation came of age, they were super pro-natalist and simultaneously talking about how important saving the environment is, and not making this connection. I was also aware that my thoughts were forbidden, even though it was so obvious to me, yet talking about it really upset people. And I was aware that I was supposed to find babies so overwhelmingly attractive, that they were the most important thing, and clearly I wasn’t like that.

So how did I get into it for real? I was 23, 24, doing my Nina’s Adventures comics, and I finally did some comics about it. I made comics for alternative weekly newspapers back then. It was a big risk to do these, but I guess I felt I had nothing to lose because the pain of knowing something is true and sitting silently while the world fills with bullshit and lies is painful, so finally that pain became too much and I just had to say something.

A consequence of publishing these comics is that I got a letter from Les U. Knight, of VHEMT, and I got another letter from Chris Korda, of the Church of Euthanasia, and that was the first time I learned that I was not the only person in the world that thought that way.

What kind of reception did you get from publishing those comics? Did you get any hate mail?

I did get some hate mail, but I wasn’t literally burned at the stake, so I lived to see another day. Again, hearing from Les and Chris was the most energizing, exciting thing, and I ended up working with both of them. I ended up going to Portland and doing stuff for VHEMTN with Les. Famously, I did that Jerry Springer show with the Church of Euthanasia: the 1997 “I want to join a suicide cult” episode of the Jerry Springer show. That was a COE action. I’m much more in the VHEMT camp than the COE camp: COE was very edgy and punk and Dada and aggressive, while VHEMT is more rational and compassionate and gentle.

VHEMT is considered fringe, even to many antinatalists. What is your opinion about it? Do you consider yourself primarily an ecological antinatalist? Your Cancer short seems to be more of the misanthropic antinatalist kind.

Deep down, I’d say I’m an ecological antinatalist, but these two things are related. I’ve been in a constant state of grief my entire life witnessing the human assault on the planet, and being aware of these mass extinctions, it’s just heartbreaking to live in this world and just watch more and more pavement getting put down, more and more habitats being lost to more and more of us, more and more of our garbage going everywhere, more and more pollution, and so on. It breaks my heart.

When I was younger, I was just devastated by this. I can’t really understate how much this affected me. People don’t believe it, because I guess most people pay lip service to these issues, they don’t really feel it, but I did. In fact, I intentionally cultivated denial just so I would continue living, because the pain of awareness is too much, it’s too sad what humans are doing to the biosphere. So I purposefully began trying to not think about it, so that I could live. And I must confess, I am happier, but I still know intellectually that these things are going on.

When you are aware of that, it’s hard to not be misanthropic, right? We’re the species that’s doing this. So I guess I’m both, but it stems from the ecological aspect of it.

You talked about “coming out” with the cartoons. Do you have any misgivings about being “out” as an antinatalist?

I don’t have any misgivings about it, but it was a big step. I was aware that it would be very upsetting to people, especially as a woman. My fertile years were just a nightmare in that respect. The expectations of women being baby-oriented are very high. And people are aghast at women that are not into babies and consider them a threat and a real perversion.

I made my peace with this long ago. It was really stressful when I was younger. Also it was really hard for my relationships, because young men didn’t want to start a relationship with a woman who didn’t want kids. In my essay My Sex-Positive Memoirs, I talk a bit about that.

Amongst young women, men have this reputation that they don’t wanna commit, that they don’t want to have families, that it’s the young women who want to have families and want commitment from a man and the man just wants to play around, but that’s not true. Men want to have families, but mostly they want to be in control. The reason that young women think that men don’t want families is because, if the woman wants a family, the man is not going to agree because they’re engaged in a control struggle. They did not like being with a woman who had made this decision, because that meant no control for them.

I understand that you wanted to make a feature length version of Thank You for Not Breeding, but that it didn’t work out. What was the story behind that?

I was making animated shorts, but couldn’t conceive of making an animated feature. I was toying with the idea of a documentary, partly because I lived in San Francisco and everyone was making documentaries at the time. I have hours of interviews with Les Knight and other people on this subject, but I just wasn’t sufficiently driven to make a whole feature-length documentary. I was very discouraged because I would show the work in progress to documentarians that I met and they were like “are you kidding? is this a joke?” because of the subject matter.

What advice do you have for antinatalists who want to produce and show antinatalist art, and perhaps want to make it more “mainstream”?

You can’t make something more mainstream, you can just make something that’s good. My advice is to hone your production skills, focus on making quality work that people will want to look at. When I was making those controversial animation shorts, I thought of it as sugar-coating a difficult pill as much as I could. The Stork was a good example of that. I knew people didn’t want to talk or think about this, so I had to make it as appetizing as possible with the art and the timing and the production values and all of that. So I think it’s very important to make high-quality work.

As an environmentalist, what do you think about environmentalists who have children in the name of raising a “better” generation?

That’s just ridiculous. I feel that VHEMT has done a very good job of addressing that. It makes no sense. Good people poop and pollute just as much as bad people, good people’s car exhaust shoots just as much carbon dioxide as bad people’s.

And the number one best measure to help the environment is to not have children. It’s been proven so many times.

I know. It’s just absurd and Bill McKibben’s book Maybe One was an intellectual train-wreck. I’m sure it’s popular because people are natalists, but I was just aghast when I read that book. It was just a jaw-dropping intellectual failure.

So is the argument there that if you raise a child to be an environmentalist, that it’s better overall for the Earth?

His argument was just “oh well, before I said don’t have any, but it’s good to want to raise and nurture a child, and only a horrible person wouldn’t understand that.”

You are also an outspoken feminist. How compatible do you think feminism and antinatalism are? After all, big natalist pushes in the culture always end up eroding women’s rights.

I think antinatalism and radical feminism are extremely compatible, and also extremely incompatible. There seems to be a fault line amongst feminist women because some women derive identity from reproducing. What radical feminism has clarified for me is that whether you really want to have children, or you absolutely don’t want to have children, women are the ones that have children and our entire lives are shaped by this fact. In my case, it was, until I got my tubal ligation, this constant terror of getting pregnant. For other women, it’s this joy of getting pregnant. But either way, it shapes your life.

There is an increasing number of antinatalist feminists, I am quite happy when I read, for example, the Gender Critical subreddit. Antinatalist women there are not willing to be completely shut down. We’re used to people saying that antinatalism is anti-woman, and it’s not, so women there make a point of arguing that. Natalist women try to shut them down and they never quite win.

So there is this fault line, but I feel there is more mutual respect between natalist and antinatalist radical feminists than I’ve found outside of radical feminism. I know many amazing radical feminist women who are mothers, and they have been quite respectful of my antinatalism. I’m not going to give them a hard time, because I really respect them and their work. As feminists, we don’t tackle every single issue in the entire world. We are on the same side of many many issues, and we fight together, and respect each other.

There are many antinatalists who believe that women bear the guilt for procreation, and that women should be vilified for it. There are also many feminists who believe that procreation is the biological role of women, and that we need to glorify it instead of suppress it. What do you say to these people?

What about the men? [laughs] Who is impregnating these women? Every unwanted pregnancy is the fault of men, every single one. One of the things we materialist, radical feminists point out is that sexual reproduction requires two sexes, male and female. Human eggs don’t do parthenogenesis well, they need sperm to fertilize them, and sperm needs eggs. it’s incredibly naive and misogynist to say that women are responsible for having babies: men are responsible.

As for the biological roles, it’s the biological role of men too, because they are the ones fertilizing those eggs. As I was saying before, women’s lives are shaped by biology, as are men’s. I think Andrea Dworkin and other radical feminists talked about this: women are very different from men in that we are profoundly vulnerable to the consequences of intercourse, an act that is no big deal for a man but has enormous consequences on our lives, pregnancy being the really obvious one. We are also more vulnerable to disease and physical injury, which doesn’t even take a lot of roughness or violence.

Pregnancy is the obvious one and it’s just not something men live with. Maybe, if a man tries really hard, he can sort of imagine it, but I don’t think it’s possible to imagine what it’s like to live with this vulnerability every day, and the threat of these massive consequences all the time.

Is it women’s reproductive role? Certainly, if reproduction is going to happen, the woman is going to be carrying out the role of being pregnant and giving birth, but it’s also not women’s role in life, because I and many other women have never done that, and thank God I’ve made it all the way to menopause without doing it. The nightmare is over, for me.

Isn’t it, in a way, a more modern way of saying “biology is destiny”? That our biology dictates our lives? Because it’s not really true, we’re able to decide, like you did with your tubal litigation, that’s not a biological imperative, but you had it done. But I think this idea that your biology determines your life is still very common.

It does determine our life: even though I had a tubal ligation, my female biology still has shaped my life. It’s not like I had to get pregnant, but even while not getting pregnant, being female has given me a very different life than a male would have. Is it destiny? Just because you can get pregnant doesn’t mean it’s your destiny to get pregnant, and doesn’t mean you should get pregnant. Another thing is, I’m a human, I can operate a gun. It doesn’t mean I should. Humans can do all kinds of things, but it doesn’t mean that we should, or have to.

I think there’s a lot of people who just think that just because having children is part of the blueprint of life, and because you’re able to do it, that therefore there’s nothing to think about there.

Actually, that’s an interesting philosophical thing. It is true that life replicates. Thinking about biological reproduction, you can go with “I’m a living thing and this is what living things do.” But humans are apparently unique animals in that so much of what we are is culture, rather than pure biology.

I believe that I actually have done plenty of reproduction and replication, culturally. And if that is in fact the meaning of life, then I’ve had an extremely meaningful life, by producing culture. And this is also related to my copyright abolition, because I view culture as a living thing that you cannot own, just as you cannot, or certainly should not, own life. And so I reproduce memetically, or culturally, rather than biologically. No human being that can talk, that has enough language to articulate why they think breeding is a good idea, is purely biological: we’re mostly cultural. So there’s plenty of meaning to be found in cultural reproduction.

And cultural reproduction is parallel to biological reproduction in that, when people go on this ego trip of “oh look what I made,” it’s like, no you didn’t, you didn’t design that DNA, you’re just part of an enormous process that’s much much bigger than you. The same is true culturally, in spite of the “genius” theory, where we believe that geniuses originate their creative work, but that’s not true either: your language comes from elsewhere, ideas come from elsewhere, you do a little bit and move them along, but that’s it. It’s much bigger than you.

17 thoughts on “Interview with Nina Paley

  1. Metro July 19, 2022 at 07:49 Reply

    I don’t get, “what about men?” is suddenly invoked when it’s convenient?

    • Francois Tremblay July 19, 2022 at 16:50 Reply

      Which question are you referring to?

      • Metro July 20, 2022 at 00:43 Reply

        I’m talking about this particular part lmao:

        “There are many antinatalists who believe that women bear the guilt for procreation, and that women should be vilified for it. There are also many feminists who believe that procreation is the biological role of women, and that we need to glorify it instead of suppress it. What do you say to these people?

        What about the men? ”

        My point is that suddenly invoking some inclusion of men when it comes to blame/obligatory, but conveniently ignoring or getting mad at that when it comes to men’s issues, or straight up going into fallacious drivels..e.g “ALL men x” is a seething mixture of hypocrisy, internal inconsistency, and nonsense.

        Infact, I’d argue against this.

        Let’s take the issue of opting out of financial responsibilities [“paper abortion”].. what’s the most common argument against it???… well women are actually the ones bearing replacement children,men don’t.

        I could just apply an equivalent line of reasonin here, as an antinatalist, I could articulate an antinatalist position:
        Women are to blame under antinatalists arguments given that they’re the ones who bear children.. they’re primary bearers of children.

        To go more extreme, women have a chance of 9 months to simply terminate the children in their wonbs and save the human race, there’s this Eren line:
        “There’s no greater salvation than not being born”

        This might seem like some edgelord stuff prima facie, but under antinatalism, it makes perfect sense.

        So women for 9 whole months might just be failing at attaining the highest good for humanity. .. it’s at least, for the most part, women’s fault.

        You see how unhinged that sounds?
        Now as for the “men are the ones who get women pregnant”.. what this statement is really sayin is men have a part in procreation.. if that can be used to invalidate blaming women under antinatalism.. then that same line of reasonin runs equally for financial abortion.

        Furthermore, even if we do agree that men are as to blame as women, one could still argue that men do not have an EQUAL amount of blame.. cause they don’t partake equally in the WHOLE process of procreation.. a parallel to anti-financial abortion arguments.

        I’m conclusion, if antinatalism blame on both sexes/genders is valid, then financial abortion arguments are equally valid.

        .. And that’s just the beginning.

        • Francois Tremblay July 20, 2022 at 01:06 Reply

          You can’t have children without a man and a woman contributing something, which is what she said in her answer. No one ever argued that women don’t share the blame, or that women’s blame is invalidated. You invented this out of whole cloth. All parents bear the responsibility for what they brought into this world.
          There may be a good argument for “paper abortions,” I don’t know, I haven’t looked into this issue, but this ain’t it, chief.

          • Metro July 20, 2022 at 02:53 Reply

            “You can’t have children without a man and a woman contributing something,”

            You’re right, but, although this may seem like splitting hairs, but this is a biologically incomplete description.. it’s just that our technology isn’t there yet.

            Parthenogenesis is something that already occurs in nature.. and note that this is much more common that male only reproduction.
            We have a hypothesis: Within the evolutionary framework, it’s more likely that males are not needed for reproduction.
            Extrapolating this to humans, although you could argue that women and men have a share in reproduction, the conclusion here is that in the human species, it’s more likely that females are more necessary than men in reproduction–if women die out, humanity would more likely go extinct than men dying out.
            Which brings one to a conclusions: Women are more important, more necessary in procreation.

            Hence, whilst this: “You can’t have children without a man and a woman contributing something” is true, men and women do not have an equal share in procreation.. women have the, let’s say, lioness share[lmao].

            “..which is what she said in her answer. No one ever argued that women don’t share the blame, or that women’s blame is invalidated.”

            I wasn’t saying that, you have a misconstrue, my statement simply is:

            “It is true that women and men share equal blame, it is also true that women and men DO NOT share equal blame, and it is also true that women share most of the blame”

            To put that in terms of something you’re most likely familiar with:

            “It is true that women and men are disadvantaged under the patriachy, it is also true that women and men DO NOT share disadvantages under the patriachy, and it is also true that women share most of the disadvantages under the patriachy”

            “You invented this out of whole cloth.”

            From the foregoing, nope.

            “All parents bear the responsibility for what they brought into this world.”

            But the argument is that those responsibilities aren’t equal.
            Just like the rights aren’t equal.

            “There may be a good argument for “paper abortions,” I don’t know, I haven’t looked into this issue, but this ain’t it, chief.”

            I’m not really interested in paper abortion that much, most abortion debates tend to be a seething volcano of sensationalism, unhinged repudiation of reason for emotions .
            In addition, I’m not that much of an ethics guy, for me, metaphysics/logic/epistemology>> ethics… I think ethics is usually inferior.. my interest only comes on when I come by an meta-ethics, or an bizarre line of argumentation.. I’m just here for the arguments.

            Now as an antinatalist and someone interested in gender discourse, loves some Simone De Beauvoir/ Warren Farrell shii, I’m just amused that this perfectly parallels paper abortion arguments so smoothly.. that’s all.

          • Metro July 20, 2022 at 02:55 Reply

            And to go for that more extreme position– one could argue that the importance and significance of men in reproduction is so miniscule to take into consideration.

            Just like the importance and significance of men’s disadvantages are so minuscule to take into consideration.

      • Metro July 20, 2022 at 00:57 Reply

        ..in addition, I see many anti-financial abortion arguments be like:
        “Life is unfair, it’s just how biology is”

        Of course, a sudden rememberance of biological constraints in the context of men.. oh my. haha.. if logical inconsistency had an apex.. not really a surprise tho.

        Anyway, any accusation of sexism/misogyny leveled against the line of reasonin I outlined above could just be rebutted with that.. Life is unfair, women are the ones with the biologist role of reproduction, so it’s them that should be solely, if not exclusively, blamed under antinatalism.

        .. again.. that’s just the beginning.

        • Metro July 20, 2022 at 23:30 Reply

          “Who cares about parthenogenesis?
          You’re committing the same fallacy as evopsych morons, using examples from other species to make arguments about humans.
          We’re not clownfish and we’re not whiptail lizards. It’s not evidence of anything.”

          Note that I said that EVEN IF we sidestep the argument from parthenogenesis, my line of reasonin would still remain, I’m just making that argument for the sake of making an argument tbh.
          Unless you don’t agree with me that women are more important, and have more rights in procreation [which I would argue entails more responsibilities, hence more blame].. I don’t see why you object to just that.

          However, your statements still don’t get to the crux of my argument, I’m not making a conclusive claim about human species from non-human species, your statements aren’t attackin an actual line of argumentation here, here’s the line of reasonin:

          1) You objected that “You can’t have children without a man and a woman contributing something,”

          In otherwords, we NEED men and women for procreation. or, men and women are a necessary biological precedent for procreation.

          2) I in return argued that that is only true for NOW–parthenogenesis is a real thing, and the technology is on the way, note that I read this from science articles like in 2019.

          3) I then considered parthenogenesis in and of itself.. we humans are part of a whole evolutionary framework, and in that evolutionary framework, PARTHENOGENESIS is an actual occurrence occurrence, more importantly, it occurs much more significantly than male-only reproduction, if it even exists, and that’s a pretty BIIIIG IF: https://theconversation.com/if-you-could-clone-yourself-would-you-still-have-sex-37514

          From the foregoing, a conclusion would be that in this evolutionary framework, it’s more likely for females to reproduce without males.
          That is, males are relatively, NOT NEEDED, for reproduction.. males are are either an evolutionary add-on or just a mistake, not something nature can go without.. it matches up perfectly with some science article I read which asserted that maleness is a disease, a deviation from femaleness, if you’d call it that.
          The further conclusion is that if we ever get a technological proximity to parthenogenesis, it’s more likely that we won’t need males for reproduction..

          Conclusion: males are more likely NOT a biological necessity for procreation.

          • Francois Tremblay July 21, 2022 at 01:02 Reply

            All right dude, keep living in your fantasy land. In the REAL world, the one we live in, human males ARE a biological necessity for human procreation. I am not here to argue fantasy. We’re done here.

            • Metro July 25, 2022 at 08:07 Reply

              Hmmm, I wasn’t even pushing a quarter as hard.. and you just reiterated everything you said without engagement with my counterarguments and rebuttals?–you’re already giving up that easily?

              .. kinda sad tho, I’m pretty bored lmao.

              Anyway, adios.

              • Francois Tremblay July 25, 2022 at 15:26 Reply

                In your fantasy land only.

                • Metro July 29, 2022 at 23:34

                  Oh, and one more thing,this isn’t an argument from “fantasy”, It’s a
                  probabilistic argument, among the OTHER arguments I outlined of course.

                • Metro July 29, 2022 at 23:50

                  Don’t know, I keep stumbling upon this page lmao, Take care anyway.

  2. Francois Tremblay July 20, 2022 at 20:35 Reply

    Who cares about parthenogenesis? You’re committing the same fallacy as evopsych morons, using examples from other species to make arguments about humans. We’re not clownfish and we’re not whiptail lizards. It’s not evidence of anything.

    • Metro July 20, 2022 at 23:31 Reply

      “Who cares about parthenogenesis?
      You’re committing the same fallacy as evopsych morons, using examples from other species to make arguments about humans.
      We’re not clownfish and we’re not whiptail lizards. It’s not evidence of anything.”

      Note that I said that EVEN IF we sidestep the argument from parthenogenesis, my line of reasonin would still remain, I’m just making that argument for the sake of making an argument tbh.
      Unless you don’t agree with me that women are more important, and have more rights in procreation [which I would argue entails more responsibilities, hence more blame].. I don’t see why you object to just that.

      However, your statements still don’t get to the crux of my argument, I’m not making a conclusive claim about human species from non-human species, your statements aren’t attackin an actual line of argumentation here, here’s the line of reasonin:

      1) You objected that “You can’t have children without a man and a woman contributing something,”

      In otherwords, we NEED men and women for procreation. or, men and women are a necessary biological precedent for procreation.

      2) I in return argued that that is only true for NOW–parthenogenesis is a real thing, and the technology is on the way, note that I read this from science articles like in 2019.

      3) I then considered parthenogenesis in and of itself.. we humans are part of a whole evolutionary framework, and in that evolutionary framework, PARTHENOGENESIS is an actual occurrence occurrence, more importantly, it occurs much more significantly than male-only reproduction, if it even exists, and that’s a pretty BIIIIG IF: https://theconversation.com/if-you-could-clone-yourself-would-you-still-have-sex-37514

      From the foregoing, a conclusion would be that in this evolutionary framework, it’s more likely for females to reproduce without males.
      That is, males are relatively, NOT NEEDED, for reproduction.. males are are either an evolutionary add-on or just a mistake, not something nature can go without.. it matches up perfectly with some science article I read which asserted that maleness is a disease, a deviation from femaleness, if you’d call it that.
      The further conclusion is that if we ever get a technological proximity to parthenogenesis, it’s more likely that we won’t need males for reproduction..

      Conclusion: males are more likely NOT a biological necessity for procreation

  3. Athena October 15, 2022 at 03:13 Reply

    why I can’t get into the terf chat ??!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: