Home » Uncategorized » Patronizing nonsense on antinatalism from ‘pro-feminist ally’ Jonah Mix

Patronizing nonsense on antinatalism from ‘pro-feminist ally’ Jonah Mix

Below are debates surrounding Jonah Mix’s disagreement with antinatalism and why he thinks radfems should give a shit about his opinions over their own. They are great examples of why radical feminism isn’t for men.

Jonah Mix part 1

Jonah Mix part 2

Jonah Mix part 3

Jonah Mix part 4: evilfeminist comes to defend him

Jonah Mix part 5: radfems discussing childfreedom among themselves

UPDATE: Jonah Mix part 6: where it all began

Truly, the role of the ‘pro-feminist male ally’ is conditional, and an ally has no right to dictate what should be more important to radfems or claim they are not being radical enough. His role is to focus on speaking to other men about misogyny, not talking over women. The definition of radical feminism is a feminism that grabs ‘at the root’ of patriarchy. Typically, it focuses on the abolition of gender and how gender roles are used by men to exploit women as a sex-class, such as in reproduction and the sex industry. Radical feminism is a movement for women, by women.

All allies should be concerned with harm-reduction and abstaining from misogynistic practices like using porn, prostituted women, and even PIV (especially not using it to impregnate women). For all the debates over whether women have choice or not to reproduce, men do not think aboout their choice to impregnate women. It is my experience that natalism, which sees life as a good thing (even under patriarchy) – per the ‘choose life’ motto – is inherently ring-wing and misogynistic. That makes the ‘pro-choice’ crowd susceptible to infiltration by anti-abortion rhetoric like,”abortion is a bad thing to go through,” or “women who abort when they find out their babies are disabled or deformed are being ableist,” with the deliberate avoidance of taking a ‘pro-abortion’ stance that would end the wishy-washiness over questions like time limits and ‘viable fetuses.’

Even ‘family planning’ suggests that motherhood is inevitable. It implies that birth control is okay, as long as women will have children – make a family – eventually. So what exactly is so horrible about just saying ‘birth control’ or ‘contraceptives’??? Childfree women aren’t planning a family, because they don’t want children, ever.

The implication that anti-natalism is somehow connected to genocide, eugenics, and forced sterilization was an assumption caused by nationalist movements, which see women as reproductive vessels for the favored race. Male nationalists convinced women by fearmongering of said forced sterlization that contraceptives and abortion were bad things. Whether it’s this group or that group encouraged to reproduce more over others is still within the realm of natalism.

Per the above examples of Jonah Mix, males will constantly try to find ways of inserting themselves in radical feminist discourse, in an attempt to change the dialogue to pander to them and men in general. One subject may be natalism. Another may be marriage, or prostitution. Another may be invoking culture (‘my culture’ or ‘their culture’). Yet another may be intersectionality, which has been so bastardized it is unrecognizable, now coining the term ‘trans-inclusive radical feminist.’ These subjects are deliberately sought out because they include men, because in them women ‘need’ men. They are meant to weaken radical feminism, to distract women from focusing on themselves and other women, and consequently, drain their energy from political activism that is not dependent on men.

22 thoughts on “Patronizing nonsense on antinatalism from ‘pro-feminist ally’ Jonah Mix

  1. Several of these screenshots are unreadable. I have a 2014 iPad Air II and they don’t enlarge when clicked on, they don’t expand.

    • Sorry!

      If you click on the links below them (part 1 etc.), you will be able to open them at the dropbox site, and expand them (there will be a little – and + option). Have you tried that?

      I’m putting the links here as well, so you don’t have to go through that again.
      part 1part 2part 3

  2. I think this dispute was a waste of time. He says he doesn’t support procreation under patriarchy, and he should have stopped there. But he wanted to insist to argue that antinatalism is not a strategy because it’s too individualistic. But that’s missing the point: antinatalism is not a strategy, it’s an ethical position. Therefore the discussion could not go anywhere.

      • Maybe I’m biased, but I’m not weeding him out. He was mostly guilty of not shutting up. Given the extremely low level of exposure to antinatalism even on the Internet, his ideas about it are not terrible.

      • It doesn’t matter what a male thinks about the best way to conduct female-centric subjects in radfem discourse, nor who is and isn’t an ally 🙂 Notice how he disagreed with antinatalism, and turned around and tried to say it’s something used against women. It seems he doesn’t understand natalism as ‘reproductive slavery,’ and that it’s only ‘slavery’ when it’s exclusively sex not done for procreation purposes; just as sex is outsourced to prostituted women, a woman who is sterile and can’t fulfill her reproductive duty will be outsourced to a surrogate. Lots of his supporters are mothers as well (not just his own mother); it’s a classic ‘not my Nigel.’ Neither of them consider it romantic or sexual coercion when the man says,’Have a baby if you love me,’ or come into any relationship already knowing they want children, and consider women really fulfilled/womanly when they have kids; then they put the birth control responsibility all on women. Neither of that leaves women with a lot of ‘choice’ in serious relationships. The mothers are all,’but women CHOOSE to have kids,’ and failed to answer my points; yet I’m sure some of them regret having them. This is the downfall of radical feminism; when there is a lack of critical analysis and it becomes liberal feminism with its choice politics.

        Childfreedom and antinatalism are fringe views and already looked down on in society, childfree and antinatalist radfems don’t need male allies helping to marginalize them even more. Since he’s biased as a male, he’s failing to see childfreedom, much less antinatalism, as a valid radfem position, and he’s supporting the cult of motherhood in the process. If a male ‘ally’ can’t focus on harm reduction of misogyny from himself and other males, and stop stealing the thunder from radfems, he is useless to the movement.

        “The pro-feminist male allies that I’m researching right now, such as Allan Johnson, Robert Jensen, and John Stoltenberg, are reiterating the same arguments about gender, sexuality, patriarchy, and the sex industries (e.g: pornography, etc) that the outrageously vilified, demonized, and mercilessly hated feminists who laid the foundations for those theories and politicized views were arguing and writing on years before, such as Andrea Dworkin, Catharine Mackinnon, and Dorchen Leidholdt. They were/are the originals and they aren’t all dead yet and their ideas sure aren’t dead, they just gain more value, validity, and legitimacy when an allied white guy repeats opinions those feminists have been made infamous for, slandered against (especially in the case of Dworkin and how she is wrongly remembered and misquoted ad infinitum), and viciously hated for.

        Do NOT ever forget their major contributions, they and others like Audre Lorde are the BACKBONE to the theories being reinforced today by pro-feminist male allies. Male allies may be advocates but they are NOT the innovators.”
        – exgynocraticgrrl

    • “But he wanted to insist to argue that antinatalism is not a strategy because it’s too individualistic.”
      That and saying he agreed with antinatalism on the philosophical, but not political level – same thing, I guess.

  3. On your latest comment, agreed on all points! It is a hell of a lot easier for me to say this stuff than it is for women to do it. But hey, if I’ve got an advantage, why not at least use it for a good purpose?

      • Seriously!! They don’t need to be rewarded. Women already fear getting pregnant as it is. If nothing else, those who have lost years of their lives to trauma and abuse have every right to focus on themselves and make the second half better. Personally, I’m making it a point to disclose my childfreedom in the beginning, so there’s no confusion and men don’t have a chance of ever convincing me.

      • Then you have sad-sack sob stories like this playing a tiny violin for men with children who are cheating on their wives, then the wives are blamed for not making them the center of attention: http://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/comments/35scw6/perspective_from_a_prostitute/ one comment reads: “I had some working girl friends in the past and they all would say the same thing. Many men would use them as therapists and whine about their families.
        I think it’s not just having preshus BAHBEE that’s the problem, it’s the way the mom and dad handle it. If the dad steps away from day 1 and goes “Okay, you’re the mom, you deal with this shit while I go make the money” he can’t cry about the fact that he doesn’t know his kids later on. He bought into the magical mommy myth to spare himself diaper duty and this is the result….”

    • In the U.S., the statistics show that it’s not so much an increase of childfree people, it’s that birth rates have gone down (people having less children) and people are waiting until later on to have children. It’s like natalist men are satisfying with waiting because at least they will eventually be able to pressure women into having children. Giving an ultimatum, for example. And given that many relationships fail after the kids come, why ruin a good thing?

    • Yeah right LOL, we all know it’s spreading HIS genes he’s concerned about. I just find it funny how secular men fool themselves on how different they are from religious men because THEY aren’t forcing women to reproduce, THEIR women are doing it for love 😉 Only afterwards, when they’re taking care of the kids, are they doing it out of duty.

      • Well yea, of course, women have to do it because it’s woman’s work. You don’t want a man to do woman’s work and be emasculated, do you? 🙂
        BTW, there is a new antinatalist chat room I’ve been going to. I’ve posted it on my blog on the right side, if you’re ever interested.

      • “You don’t want a man to do woman’s work and be emasculated, do you?” um, how many kids do they think they need to have? i’ll check out the new chat room!

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s