Anti-natalism does not tell women what to do, but tries to convince people not to do one specific thing.
We don’t look at reproduction as a female activity just because only women are the ones who can get pregnant. This is a biological fact not a fundamental one. And in principle, at least usually, it’s couples made up of men and women who decide to reproduce. That’s why we don’t assume that the decision to procreate is a female matter. Of course, pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding are mainly female affairs, but at least theoretically couples who decide to reproduce decide on it together. This is not a woman’s decision and not a female issue. It’s a human issue.
And if anything, in many cases, anti-natalism will actually reduce the pressure on women to get pregnant, give birth and breastfeed. Although this is not the main motivation in anti-natalism, it is a very important side gain in itself. If patriarchy, among other things, has turned women into walking uteruses throughout history, meaning people whose main (if not the only) role is to give birth and raise children, anti-natalism, if successful, can be a certain part of women’s liberation from this specific oppression. Because most of the pressure and expectation to reproduce is on women, and because women who choose not to reproduce get reactions ranging from eye rolling to a “mental diagnosis” that something is wrong with them, while men’s choice not to reproduce is seen as legitimate and perfectly normal, normalizing the choice not to reproduce is, if anything, anti-patriarchal. Normalizing the choice not to reproduce, especially among women, will neutralize the infamous threat “You’ll regret it!”
Again, this is not our primary goal. We are not trying to catch a ride here on another important and just struggle, but simply to oppose the claim that there is something anti-feminist about anti-natalism. As far as we are concerned, this is not the case in any way, and if we had not heard such claims, it is doubtful that we would have even thought of such a link. Of course pregnancy, which is a necessary step in the creation of people, is a very gendered issue, but anti-natalism criticizes the decision to create new people, not the process. Therefore for us it is a completely human issue, with a completely secondary gender aspect related to the fact that only one gender can physically reproduce. Not anything beyond that.
The pregnancy itself is nothing more than another step in the process of creating a new person, although necessary and therefore critical, but not at the principle level. A person is not created in a delivery room but inside the head of his parents, so the fact that only women can give birth is mostly technical. And so, once again, even though women have a biologically crucial role, in principle, it is no greater than that of their partners. If only it were true that only women reproduce because only they want to and not because only they can, anti-natalism would be a gender issue, but as long as people reproduce regardless of their gender, the fact that only women can conceive is marginal on a principle level.
If we ignore, for that matter, the fact that nothing is truly gender neutral, anti-natalism is a moral stance against the creation of new people, not against childbirth, breastfeeding or anything else that only women can do. In this sense anti-natalism is gender neutral. After all, only women can give birth, but people decide to create people. The fact that the creation of people goes through birth and birth goes only through women, is a technical fact, not a principle. The problem with creating a new person is moral and principled, not biological and technical. It is the decision to create a new person that is morally problematic, not the birth process. And usually the decision to create new people is made by two people who are usually a woman and a man. Of course there are also many other cases (two women, two men, one woman, one man), but in any case, on a principled level, the decision to create a person must be separated from the technical process. In most cases, the decision to create a new person is made by a man alongside the woman, and he is equally responsible. Even in cases where a woman decided to create a new person, the problem is not a feminine one because a woman can give birth and a man cannot, but a human problem and it is that a person (who in this case is a woman but could also be a man who for that matter used a woman’s surrogacy services) can decide to create new people.
The problem is with people who make the principled decision to create a new person, not with women who have a necessary part in the technical operation of this morally wrong decision.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that unfortunately women encounter more hostile reactions than men in the context of reproduction. But it is related to the mythic image that still has remnants left, that it is mainly women who want children, while men want women and are therefore willing to pay the price. This shallow and chauvinistic perception (which is also offensive to men) is of course a completely wrong image. Some women want children more than men and vice versa. But even if there was something in the myth of natural maternal feelings, biological clocks etc., it is still equally shared responsibility because the decision was made by both parties, regardless of differences in desires if there were any. Therefore, and of course regardless of that, we condemn a hostile attitude directed specifically at women based on their decision to procreate. A hostile attitude is not desirable in any case, and one that is specifically directed only at women because they are women, is completely misogynistic and worthy of all reproach just like in any other field.
Creating new people is not a gender problem but a human one. Gender problems exist in the world regardless of anti-natalism and we as a movement must condemn them and denounce such voices from among us. There is no place for misogyny, in the world in general, and in the anti-natalist movement, which champions sensitivity to harming others, in particular.