Comments on: Always leave’em wanting more

By: atopian

atopian — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:08:44 +0000

But at the same time, feminists can’t shrink from the patriarchy’s threat that “If women quit submitting to heterosex [rape], the species would go extinct!” It’s the same threat capitalism makes, that without it all we’d be left with is a Mad-Max hellscape. Revolutionaries must be willing to wager everything, up to and including the extinction of the species. Anyone talking about apocalypse is selling something.

By: atopian

atopian — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 14:46:15 +0000

This Malthusian crap has been around forever, and the impending population crisis has never struck. Actually, the rhetoric of ‘population control’ from its inception has been a tool of the megatheocorporatocracy for oppressing the lower classes, e.g. enabling forced sterilization of poor women of color. There are no “natural” limits to population growth apart from those imposed by the system of domination and maldistribution we live under. If there were, we never would have gotten this far.

And wouldn’t it be depressing for homo sapiens to go extinct without ever experiencing life free from patriarchy? So even though I might never reproduce, I’m against the VHEMT. And you should be too. Talking about “overpopulation” is the same faux-scientific naturalizing that the evolutionary psychologists do to prop up patriarchy. Let’s say there IS a problem with overpopulation (as there has, for HUNDREDS of years, been purported to be)–what can we, the enlightened and beneficent patriarchs, do about it? Legislate women’s bodies.

By: J.Goff

J.Goff — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:34:31 +0000

And the child IS half his

Bullshit. The child is a child, not owned by anyone. Half of the support of the child is his. Remember, people are not owned, and the language you use has to reflect that. As it is, it seems your language completely reflects the idea that children are not entities unto themselves, but slaves, the responsibility of whom is a political poker chip.

By: Donna

Donna — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:33:00 +0000

Amholdi, what you’re describing re: nutrition and shitting would be a fallacy, which is exactly the point that VHEMT is making.

By: Donna

Donna — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:28:41 +0000

GC, I’m not understanding your defense of men who don’t want to pay child support. It kinda contradicts your contention that tax policy ought to be changed so that childless people aren’t subsidizing other peoples’ kids. IOW, ought not the sperm donor be expected to contribute more to the care and feeding of his offspring than unrelated taxpayers?

By: Voluntary Human Extinctionist Movement « Gender Goggles

Voluntary Human Extinctionist Movement « Gender Goggles — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:05:13 +0000

[...] I found this post, which led me to the Voluntary Human Extinctionist Movement. Basically, the idea is that humans [...]

By: Hedgepig

Hedgepig — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:44:05 +0000

@Jezebella @BeliefBeef: LOL

By: Jezebella

Jezebella — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:26:32 +0000

Well, now you have.

By: BeliefBeef

BeliefBeef — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:48:42 +0000

I don’t understand what your advocating for though. It seems your blaming ‘humankind’ and you want humans to become extinct. While we are all free to think the way we want, I have never really heard of people wanting their own species to die off.

By: Hedgepig

Hedgepig — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:06:06 +0000

Amlohdi, want to back up your call with a bit of analysis? The analogy looks sound to me; I’d be interested to know how you think it’s fallacious.