The "coerced motherhood versus human extinction" question is a thought experiment, not a claim about women.

Many of you thought yesterday’s post was a declaration that birth rates are dropping because women don’t like having babies.

Feminism Must Prefer Human Extinction Over Coerced Motherhood

Maybe I was unclear, or maybe you’re avoiding an uncomfortable question, but let’s stretch this sucker out and nail it to the wall.

My post makes the following factual observations:

• Birth rate is negatively correlated with female education, wealth, and IQ.

• Childbirth entered the evolutionary chain before “critical thinking” as we define it today (i.e., figuring out that fucking leads to babies).

• Fertility rates are plummeting, in many places (like the US) falling below the 2.1-babies-per-woman to sustain humanity, and this is defined as a problem.

I then point out a potential conflict between progressive values and defining low fertility rates as a problem.

• Men want women to have babies. If women like having babies, then we can cleanly define low fertility as a problem.

• If women don’t like having babies, then we have a conflict, and low fertility is not so straightforwardly defined as a problem if you are a progressive with egalitarian or feminist values.

I wrote, “I’m concerned that, in our existential terror, we will refuse to consider that human women may simply not want to have 2.1 children each.”

Your responses to being asked to even consider this possibility are all over the fucking place:

• “I am skeptical of the claim that the reason women are opting out of motherhood more is some win of feminist liberation and smashing the patriarchy.”

• “This belief mrgirl has that women are opting out of motherhood because of their liberation from oppressive men in modern developed countries is dubious to me.”

• “America and many other first-world countries are plighted by shitty wages, unaffordable housing, and a general lack of social education.”

• “I'm surprised you're now taking or I guess simply accepting the ultimate anti-human position - extinction of the human species being an acceptable outcome.”

I didn’t claim that women don’t like having children. I said we should consider it.

Clearly you don’t want to do that, so now I have to make you.

---

The Coerced Motherhood Versus Human Extinction Dilemma

Assume the following for this hypothetical fucking question.

1. By your own definition, women ultimately do not like having children enough to average 2.1 offspring each.

2. By your own definition, the only way to prevent human extinction is to psychologically or physically coerce women into reproducing.

You are now forced to dig out and reckon with your entitlement to women’s wombs. If you are not able to slimily reconfigure the hypothetical so that you don’t have to consider the large-scale consent of women, what do you choose?

If you consider yourself a feminist, progressive, humanist, or generally consider yourself anti-rape, you must choose human extinction. If you choose coercion, you must acknowledge that you do not actually believe in women’s bodily autonomy, and that this must inform all of your other social positions.

Now, regardless of your own answer to this question, I’d like you to consider what women think most people would choose, and how that undermines every claim of progressivism, as well as every interpersonal display of affection, compliment, or gift.

Remember how scorpion flies have that “notal organ” I told you about? The male presents the female a nuptial gift of sugar. If she rejects it, he uses a clamp built into his abdomen to hold her down and rape her.

If that’s what we’re doing, we should be able to admit it, but based on your response to the initial essay, I fear that we can’t. Refusing to consider whether we are coercing women into motherhood is the same as choosing to do it.

Here’s another thought experiment:

I think it would drop precipitously.

If so, what does that say about men and their views on sex, on women’s bodies, and even on children?